Unsure if this counts as a quote but here goes.
If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best
Absolute fucking nonsense.
The worst part of this quote is that, in the original, she (Marilyn Monroe) actually framed her “worst”:
>I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.
So in the context it sounds more like “here are my flaws - take me or leave me, but you won’t change me”. Which sounds reasonable. But without that context it sounds more like “I’m entitled because I like to pretend that I’m above other people”.
This is a similar thing to “the customer is always right”, where the meaning has shifted due to lost context. The original quote was “the customer is always right in matters of taste”. Basically, it meant that if the customer wants to buy something, they’re not wrong and stupid because the seller thinks it’s wrong and stupid to want to buy. Not that the customer is in a perpetual moral high ground over the business and should be granted every wish.
I’ve seen this before but is that truly the origin? On the Wikipedia page, the quote(s) do not seem to allude to taste or buying preferences at all but rather to customer service. I’ve tried searching but I haven’t seen any primary sources state that the original quote, or intent, was with the inclusion of “in matters of taste”.
I got it from my college econ professor, so I don’t have further sourcing. Sorry
Okay, I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s kind of an apocryphal reverse-explanation to counter currently all-too-common abusive behavior towards service personnel. I think it’s just an old motto that once made more sense than it does today when it’s been in use for over a hundred years.
I feel like I’ve never seen or heard of anyone good using that quote. I’m sure it makes some sense if used in genuine good faith. The quote would make sense applied to someone with a disability, for example, by interpreting it more along the lines of having to deal with the person not always being outgoing and maybe even sometimes needing extra help.
But no, I’ve only ever seen shitty (or at least allegedly shitty) people use that quote, to justify their shittiness. The “worst” they refer to is usually bouts of anger or abuse.
It depends, at their worst are they abusive to their friends, family etc for no good reason? If so, then I’d agree it is nonsense used by abusers. If it’s said by someone who gets treated awfully for having a rough day, week etc and gets treated badly, well then this quote is true.
Not see it. But I hear this one.
“it’s always in the last place you look”
No shit Sherlock. Why would I keep looking after I found it?
I always thought that was the joke?
I must say, in retrospect it kind of seems obvious, but this has somehow blown my mind
What people really mean when they say this is
it’s in the last place you think to look
This again is a misnomer because, not just because you stop looking… but because people find it hard to admit things are lost. All part of the half serious, half ridiculous psuedo science of Findology (disclaimer: my own blog)
Embarrassingly it took me years to realize what that quote meant. I had always interpreted it to mean that the item is found in an unexpected place. But of course what it really means is that you stop looking once the item is found, therefore that’s the last place you looked 🤦
One time I kept looking just to prove that statement wrong. I think I was 4yo.
And it is a false statement:
sometimes you stop looking without finding anything so in those cases it isn’t in the last place you look
so the clam “It’s always in the last place you look” is obviously false.
otherwise you could say up front “I’m only gonna look in one place!” and then you would HAVE to find it in this last place you look!
“We only use x% of our brain.”
Simply not true as shown since years by neurology
There are moments where people use more of their bran at once than they usually do.
We call these moments “seizures”.This reminds me of the “you eat X amount of spiders in your sleep every year”. It’s also been debunked so many times and I see it popping up from time to time.
Even more ironic, this was created by some professor (?) to prove that starting fake viral facts was easy or something…
If you just add the words on average, suddenly it sounds more realistic, because who knows if there’s a guy somewhere sleepwalking in a spider infested place
Good old Spiders George
If i recall that explanation for the spider fact is itself just made up with no source.
God no… Please… :(
Oh, and X% of dust is dead skincells. There is a good Veritasium video on this clai.
Man, I always thought that one was suspect. If I eat 10 per year and have been alive 40+ years, then surely one of those times I would have woken up.
I’ve almost never heard anyone quote that, but I’ve heard numerous people arguing against that statement. So much that I’m wondering it it has mandela-affected people to think it’s a more common misconception than it really is.
I do remember it being more common back when I was in high school, and also there was a movie which mentioned that which could have helped with that
I also havent heard it being said seriously for years though
Right, it was the plot for the movie Lucy, where the protagonist increased the brain capacity beyond 10% and upon reaching 100%, she turned into an USB drive. I remember that now.
Such a good movie with such bad writing…
I am surprised no one yet has posted the infuriatingly worthless expression of affectless sympathy:
thoughts and prayers
As a nonnative speaker, the first time I heard the expression was on Bojack Horseman and it confused the hell out of me.
I agree most of the time, but when I have to sign a sympathy card at work for someone i barely know, what the hell am i supposed to say?
I can’t change the work culture so i just say something generic like that most of the time lol
Btw I’m not even religious
Religious bs
Thing is if prayers did anything, life would be way better (utopia)
If prayers were always effective, life would be both better and far worse. You’d be surprised at the horrific things people pray for.
And some of the “good” things we pray for go against what we desperately need.
So you think you can tell heaven from hell?
- Wish You Were Here - Pink Floyd
Very true. It’d be so bad
“Life’s not fair.” It seems that more often than not the person saying it is in a position to make the situation fair. Usually it is people in positions of power saying it and it feels more like an excuse for their inaction.
This is true. My mum used it a bit.
Hard men create easy times.
Easy times create soft men.
Soft men create hard times.
Hard times create hard men.
Man creates dinosaurs
Dinosaurs eat man
Woman inherits the earth
Which is ironically said the most by soft men who grew up in easy times.
More cheese => more holes.
More holes => less cheese.
Therefore: More cheese => Less cheese
actually it ought to be:
More holes => more cheese
and subsequently:
More cheese => more cheese.
Tautology at it’s best
One thing I never understood about that nonsense quote is why it would be a bad thing even if it were true. Like, who the heck wants people to be “hard” or have hard times? What’s so awful about people having easy times and getting to relax and enjoy life?
It’s also usually used by “back in my day” bigots who are usually using it to complain about people they don’t like and quite frequently LGBT people, because they think that their generation pushing people into the closet was somehow a good thing (or that it meant LGBT people didn’t exist).
Everything happens for a reason.
…often said with the unspoken implication that it’s a good reason, planned by a higher power, and that you should just meekly accept things and shut up.
Everything happens as the result of an infinite number of things that happened beforehand and led inevitably to this thing happening now. Free will is a lie.
… Sorry, that took a turn.
Super closely related is the “god works in mysterious ways” apology often used as the response if you ask what that reason was. It’s bizarre that the people saying that quote are so insistent that everything happens for a reason even though they cannot answer what that reason might be (and usually get really uncomfortable if you press for an answer).
“Do or do not, there is no try”
The rallying cry of the kind of person who thinks every hobby has to become a side hustle.
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
This is what I wanted to say but didn’t have the words for. Thanks.
I feel like that quote is better interpreted as “you haven’t failed until/unless you give up.” There is also value to “don’t go into something without committing to it,” but damn not everything has to be a fucking job.
Let’s not let those people “have” Star Wars quotes. Same thing when Nazi trash in America tried to co-opt the “Ok” hand sign, Hawaiian shirts, etc. I was a bit dismayed by how fast people were willing to cede those things away. My take is: They can’t have them, don’t give up so easily.
Capitalists in a nutshell
I don’t see it anymore after leaving the hell that is Reddit, but I saw “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” multiple times in every thread.
I haven’t seen “fuck around and find out” since the old Reddit days, either.
Thank goodness for that. Another comment that was posted over and over and over in every thread.
“Equal rights means equal lefts” or whatever tf it was, especially during the Depp/Heard thing. Basically condoning hitting women. But then if you disagree with it, it gets spun into endorsing women abusing men. Reddit comments can be fucking gross.
I mean I get that if used in a context where a person does something with great risk attached and with few and rare good possible outcomes (stupid games). And then they get a bad outcome (stupid prize).
For example Jackass-like stunts.
It’s just a stupid phrase that I hate, parroted to death multiple times in every Reddit thread ever.
Usually as a way of being racist, too.
The friggin “definition of insanity” quote that is usually misattributed to Einstein. From some cursory research, a lot of first appearances of the quote come from the 80s, though I saw a few different sources from Narcotics Anonymous pamphlets to mystery novels.
We all know it’s Vaas who said it first.
Jokes aside though, misattributed quotes are quite the phenomenon. Is it deliberate? Is it some sort of mandela effect? It’s really weird sometimes, but like Gandhi said, don’t believe anything that comes without a verifiable source.
I thought it was Lincoln who said you can’t trust everything on the Internet? Sounds like Gandhi kinda stoled it, but changed it a little.
> but like Gandhi said, don’t believe anything that comes without a verifiable source.
He totally said that! It’s written down in the Internet so it is true!
Back in Gandhi’s time, you had to do the CSS formatting by hand as well.
But then Gandhi invented the first autolinter.
Man, I totally forgot that part. Dude was way before his time.
Plus, it’s complete bullshit. Trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results, could describe practise, or experimentation.
And even if it were a sign of insanity, it would most certainly not be its definition.
Damn right, yet another hole
Or rolling a die.
Ehhhh, I want to agree but practice is expecting the same result, minor incremental improvement. In scientific experimentation, one should not be expecting anything, that’s researcher bias.
Nah, you’re pedantic but you’re right tbh.
That’s a fair assessment honestly lol.
I don’t know who has to hear this but
I don’t know who has to hear this but
that’s a phrase, not a quote.
Anything on a decorative sign meant to hang in a house. Examples include “Live, Laugh, Love” (which has already been mentioned) or something about wine.
This is a me problem, but it makes me cringe when someone has to explicitly write out who they are onto a sign.
I feel like that should be shown and not said. To me, it feel ingenuous when it’s written onto a sign
For me its the one that promoted me to write this, the futurama quote “you’re are technically correct, the best kind of correct”
I hate how people use it over at forums, it is repeated ad nauseam, even if it doesn’t make much sense. It’s probably from people using it constantly that I hate the quote, and not something that has to do with the meaning.
I could be wrong but i think it’s originally from Futurama
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/0ZEuWJ4muYc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I think I said that lol
My least favorite is
Just be yourself!
Even in grade school I knew this was hogwash. I didn’t act the same in class as during recess, or in church as when at the dinner table. Exactly which me was I supposed to be? When someone asks, “What am I supposed to do?” They are really asking, “How should I behave?” And if you’ve never been on a date before, or this is your first job interview, then it’s not obvious.
A: “So, how did the interview go?”
B: “Not so well, he threw my resume away, in front of me, and ordered me to leave.”
A: “What? Why?”
B: “Well, I did just as your said, I was being myself. I walked in, gave him the ol’ finger guns, then started with my best fart joke.”
A: “Why the hell would you do that at an interview?”
B: “Because that routine always slays in the dorms and I was trying to be myself.”
ask yourself: is it possible to be anybody else? no? then this saying is non-nonsensical!
I don’t know, as a ttrpg’er, I’m being someone else every two weeks for three hours are a time. ;)
Anybody on the autism spectrum just laughs sadly, shakes head quietly, when told ‘just be your self’
The good old GNU/Linux quote.
I like Stallman’s ideas on free software but this whole GNU/Linux thing is an absolute waste of time and I hate how it still gets brought up.
Let me interject for a moment!
What you guys are referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. Thank you for taking your time to cooperate with with me, your friendly GNU+Linux neighbor, Richard Stallman.
The quote attributed to Stallman is made up and is a distortion of his actual views.
He created GNU as an operating system. His position is that when talking about the GNU OS, it is appropriate to call it GNU/linux if it’s running the linux kernel, though he is also fine with calling it GNU.
The italicized parts are made up, the rest is true. He says so much in the article you linked.
In any case, we’re repeating the same old discussion I’m tired of. Should’ve seen it coming.
